Accurate assessment of cerebral perfusion is vital for understanding the hemodynamic processes involved in various neurological disorders and guiding clinical decision‐making. This guidelines article provides a comprehensive overview of quantitative perfusion imaging of the brain using multi‐timepoint arterial spin labeling (ASL), along with recommendations for its acquisition and quantification. A major benefit of acquiring ASL data with multiple label durations and/or post‐labeling delays (PLDs) is being able to account for the effect of variable arterial transit time (ATT) on quantitative perfusion values and additionally visualize the spatial pattern of ATT itself, providing valuable clinical insights. Although multi‐timepoint data can be acquired in the same scan time as single‐PLD data with comparable perfusion measurement precision, its acquisition and postprocessing presents challenges beyond single‐PLD ASL, impeding widespread adoption. Building upon the 2015 ASL consensus article, this work highlights the protocol distinctions specific to multi‐timepoint ASL and provides robust recommendations for acquiring high‐quality data. Additionally, we propose an extended quantification model based on the 2015 consensus model and discuss relevant postprocessing options to enhance the analysis of multi‐timepoint ASL data. Furthermore, we review the potential clinical applications where multi‐timepoint ASL is expected to offer significant benefits. This article is part of a series published by the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM) Perfusion Study Group, aiming to guide and inspire the advancement and utilization of ASL beyond the scope of the 2015 consensus article.

Purpose: Amide proton transfer‐weighted (APTw) MRI at 3T provides a unique contrast for brain tumor imaging. However, APTw imaging suffers from hyperintensities in liquid compartments such as cystic or necrotic structures and provides a distorted APTw signal intensity. Recently, it has been shown that heuristically motivated fluid suppression can remove such artifacts and significantly improve the readability of APTw imaging.Theory and Methods: In this work, we show that the fluid suppression can actually be understood by the known concept of spillover dilution, which itself can be derived from the Bloch‐McConnell equations in comparison to the heuristic approach. Therefore, we derive a novel post‐processing formula that efficiently removes fluid artifact, and explains previous approaches. We demonstrate the utility of this APTw assessment in silico, in vitro, and in vivo in brain tumor patients acquired at MR scanners from different vendors.Results: Our results show a reduction of the CEST signals from fluid environments while keeping the APTw‐CEST signal intensity almost unchanged for semi‐solid tissue structures such as the contralateral normal appearing white matter. This further allows us to use the same color bar settings as for conventional APTw imaging.Conclusion: Fluid suppression has considerable value in improving the readability of APTw maps in the neuro‐oncological field. In this work, we derive a novel post‐processing formula from the underlying Bloch‐McConnell equations that efficiently removes fluid artifact, and explains previous approaches which justify the derivation of this metric from a theoretical point of view, to reassure the scientific and medical field about its use.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Spiral MR imaging has several advantages compared with Cartesian MR imaging that can be leveraged for added clinical value. A multicenter multireader study was designed to compare spiral with standard-of-care Cartesian postcontrast structural brain MR imaging on the basis of relative performance in 10 metrics of image quality, artifact prevalence, and diagnostic benefit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven clinical sites acquired 88 total subjects. For each subject, sites acquired 2 postcontrast MR imaging scans: a spiral 2D T1 spin-echo, and 1 of 4 routine Cartesian 2D T1 spin-echo/TSE scans (fully sampled spin-echo at 3T, 1.5T, partial Fourier, TSE). The spiral acquisition matched the Cartesian scan for scan time, geometry, and contrast. Nine neuroradiologists independently reviewed each subject, with the matching pair of spiral and Cartesian scans compared side-by-side, and scored on 10 image-quality metrics (5-point Likert scale) focused on intracranial assessment. The Wilcoxon signed rank test evaluated relative performance of spiral versus Cartesian, while the Kruskal-Wallis test assessed interprotocol differences. RESULTS: Spiral was superior to Cartesian in 7 of 10 metrics (flow artifact mitigation, SNR, GM/WM contrast, image sharpness, lesion conspicuity, preference for diagnosing abnormal enhancement, and overall intracranial image quality), comparable in 1 of 10 metrics (motion artifacts), and inferior in 2 of 10 metrics (susceptibility artifacts, overall extracranial image quality) related to magnetic susceptibility (P < .05). Interprotocol comparison confirmed relatively higher SNR and GM/WM contrast for partial Fourier and TSE protocol groups, respectively (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Spiral 2D T1 spin-echo for routine structural brain MR imaging is feasible in the clinic with conventional scanners and was preferred by neuroradiologists for overall postcontrast intracranial evaluation.